If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This isn't communism. We still have businesses and open markets. History shows that any time somebody came up with an idea to help those less fortunate (the New Deal, Medicare), there was always somebody there to claim it was communism.

How many times has this country worked with Britain, Australia, Israel, and others of a similar government? They all have set ups you all would consider to be communist.

Originally Posted by JB

I replied to you with facts and you have a problem with that?

OK, from now on I'll just call you silly nicknames, deflect your comments and make all my responses to you on a personal level. You know, typical douchebag stuff.

I think I responded to your facts. I'm talking about the fact that you told me to repent and find myself a conservative man. I don't want a conservative man, not if they're going to declare I'm evil. They can't declare that I'm evil unless we're role playing.

A long time ago, you said that banning me would be like a Christmas present to you. Later on, you said you never advocated banning me. Now, you're saying I pretend to be conservative so nobody will ban me.

Please clarify your position. Do you want me banned or not? I just think you've been a little bit less than honest on this subject.

So, we've pulled out of Iraq. That should help keep us from getting more into debt. We're working on getting out of Afghanistan, which will do the same.

No it won't. For crying out loud, you think that matters. The Democrats just added $4 Trillion to the debt over ten years just a few days ago.

Fredo wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling. He just said yesterday that he won't entertain any package two months from now that does not raise the debt ceiling. Turn off MSNBC and get the truth about what is happening in this country.

A company is not going to hire a permanent employee in return for a temporary tax break. For that matter, what the employer pays the employee is ALREADY a tax break. People will be hired who can make money for the company, not as a favor to the government.

I don't know if I can agree with that, Star. I've read where so called corporate welfare (tax break for companies) lead out to more jobs being created. Employers argue they can't hire or keep workers due to taxes. Bush said from the beginning these tax cuts were not permanent. I think that sometimes a tax break does lead out to job growth, not aways though.

I've been told straight out "I didn't start a company to create jobs." That was said to me by one of the most good looking conservative men who ever posted on here. Oh well. Anyway, we're trying to keep the entire country afloat. Romney had the nerve to say that he thought his paying less taxes was fair because he was supposedly still a job creator. Why should we go out of our way to please the companies when they're saying all along that they're not doing what they do to create jobs? My concerns are the country as a whole, not pleasing one group of people. Why should we go out of our way for people who take their jobs overseas? They put people out of work, then complain because people sign up for social programs.

I've actually supported so called "corporate welfare" in the past because it did show to create jobs. If I think it will support the country as a whole, then I'll probably support it.

Originally Posted by Starbuck

No. Wages are falling and have been falling with respect to inflation for a long long time. 10 years ago we all got regular pay raises.

We've had a rough ten years (and only four of them were under Obama). However, my point stands. If we didn't put some rules regarding how much we had to pay an employee, we'd still have people getting paid for pennies. Okay, they might get paid dollars.

Originally Posted by Starbuck

Now, almost no one does. Every study shows a decreasing purchasing power for our middle class. Marx? Let's keep the subject on Obama. I don't know anything about Marx, and can not discuss what he may have thought....

Okay, here's what you need to know. He lived during a time period when employers exploited their workers. There were no safety standards, no standards about age of employees, and no wage standards. People could very well get badly hurt or even die for a job they got paid little to nothing for. Stuff like this lead out to some horrible ideas, and Marx was one of those people who had a horrible idea about what to do. FDR and other progressives had better ideas. Regulate business and create a safety net. This helped people work their way into what we now call the middle class. That's the point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by Starbuck

While that is true, it has nothing to do with your basic premise that Obama has created more jobs than Bush. And I will even agree with that, if you do not take into account that in Obama's economy there is a requirement of some 12 million more jobs than there were in 2000 when Bush first took office. In other words, Obama needs 12 million more jobs to re-create the employment picture that existed in 2000. And about 4 million more than there were when he took office. Figure about 1 million jobs a year increase just to break even with the population's needs.

I still think he could get more done if he didn't have to deal with a Republican house. I really wish we could have gotten a matching President and House/Senate, even if it meant Romney winning and Republicans taking completely over. At least they would have been able to work together for solutions.

Originally Posted by Starbuck

Most of your post was just obfuscation as you attempted to change the subject away from your basic, "Obama is successful" statement, and I suggest you start another thread for that.

You brought up the mortgage crisis. In turn, I brought up the fact that banks were relying on bailouts by the government instead of renegotiating with those who were struggling or better yet, not making those deals to begin with. They did what they did because they knew the government would bail them out. They're not held responsible for their actions.

Originally Posted by Starbuck

But I need to point out that this forum is the one place in the world where member are almost universally opposed to bailouts! Most members here want to tear their hair out when the subject of bailouts comes up! On the particular issue of bailouts, most of us have excoriated Bush, Greenspan, Obama, Bernanke, and anyone else who participated. For you to say we "but don't have one word to say against companies wanting bailouts" is a ridiculous statement.

People here wouldn't support the great bailout, which actually saved a lot of jobs. Consequently, I support that because people needed to keep their jobs; maybe not so much with the auto industry.

However, whenever people are getting their homes foreclosed, you all are like "Well, they should have kept their payments up." It's never "The bank is unethical for making deals they know the other guy couldn't keep, relying on bail outs." If you have something bad to say, it's almost always about the little guy, not the bigger guy.

No it won't. For crying out loud, you think that matters. The Democrats just added $4 Trillion to the debt over ten years just a few days ago.

Fredo wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling. He just said yesterday that he won't entertain any package two months from now that does not raise the debt ceiling. Turn off MSNBC and get the truth about what is happening in this country.

I don't agree with raising the debt ceiling.

Don't you think that higher taxes would help out with paying the debt? Everybody is so against raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for anything?

Don't you think that higher taxes would help out with paying the debt?

For a year Fredo campaigned on "The top 2% should pay more taxes". His BS got him reelected. He just raised taxes on 80+% of the country. He lied. He's a liar. A scumbag. He's evil.

The thing is, these new taxes and these existing taxes that have just been raised are not going to pay for the debt. You tell me how the new 3.8% tax to pay for Fredocare is going to pay down the debt.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Everybody is so against raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for anything?

Everyone, including our dear Lanie, points to 2007 as the start of the recent fall in our economy.
Now for the history majors out there, what event in American politics took place in January 2007 which again, almost every economic graph confirms, coincides with this date?